An ancient language form that
originated in the North African area of our most ancient civilizations has
been studied by Nyland
(2001).He found that many words used
to describe names of places and things in the world seem to be closely
related to the ancient language, which is being called Saharan.It appears that the Basque language is a close relative to the
original Saharan.Following is a
discussion of this relationship:

History relates that in early times a variety of people
came to the British Isles from the continent of Europe. These people had
names such as Angles, Saxons,
Friesians, Vikings, Celts, Normans, etc. They
all brought their own peculiar and primitive little languages along with
them. These languages then somehow magically blended into the beautiful, rich
and practical language we speak today. History also tells us that small
groups of people arriving in a new country usually accept the language of
their new environment, within two or three generations and surely this
happened in Britain. However, what happened to the highly developed language
that was spoken by the first inhabitants of Britain? That this language
existed we know from the writings of the early missionaries. They even used
it in their Ogam inscriptions on stone
and in the Auraicept
na n'Eces, the
operations manual of the Benedictine clergy. In Scotland, the original
language was called Pictish, in Ireland Cruithin and often it was referred to as the
"Iron Language". How did it disappear and what was it like? Surely
there must be something left of this first language of the British
Isles.Languages do not disappears
without a trace, especially not in their home country.

Linguists, in the 20th
Century, decided that the early language of Britain had been
non-Indo-European and many of them agreed that all of Europe at one time was
unilingual, i.e. all people everywhere spoke the same language. We are told
this also in Genesis 11:1, "Now the whole earth had one
language....". This begs the question: If everyone spoke the same
non-Indo-European language, what happened to change this into a plethora of
unstable Indo-European and other languages? The answer is: Genesis 11:7 which
tells us: "Come let us go down, and there confuse their language so they
may no longer understand one another's speech". Could it be that the
switch from the Universal language to the confusion of new and unstable
languages was brought about through religious action? Was this sentence to be
taken as a biblical command, demanding action? Genesis 11:9: "It was in
Babel that the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there
the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the earth". Could all
the Indo-European languages be the product of highly skilled religious
linguists? It may be hard to believe but that is exactly what happened.

A THEORY IN
QUESTION

Sir William Jones was dispatched to India as a judge in
1783. Being an amateur linguist, he spent his evenings teaching himself
Sanskrit, a dead language that was being maintained by priests who memorized
its sacred hymns. In 1786 he told a gathering of the Asiatick Society in
Calcutta that many of the classical languages, such as Sanskrit, Greek,
Latin, Gothic, Celtic and Persian must come from the same source:

"a stronger affinity ... than could
possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no
philologer could examine them all without believing them to have sprung from
some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists".

The "perfect" relationship between the
examples he gave was there for everyone to see and Bingo!, the genetic family
of Indo-European languages was born, soon to be joined by a baffling assortment
of laws of phonological correspondence and an Ur-mother-language which had
supposedly given birth to the whole mess. The academic world built a big
bandwagon and all jumped on, linguists, archeologists, anthropologists,
geographers, etc.. All are now using the classification
"Indo-European" as if it were a reality. Over the past two
centuries, thousands of highly paid linguists have conducted their endless
and fruitless research into the perceived genetic relationship. All they need
now is a few more years of study to answer all the questions

While studying the language "family" some of
the more astute linguists realized there was something irregular. They
decided that the truth could be established by using classical comparative
methodology. To accomplish this they proposed four criteria supposed to be
diagnostic:

However, the early grammarians, active over the last
four millennia, were well ahead of them. They had, very early on, recognized
that spoken languages do change into dialects and independent languages and
thus they had long ago built these same four criteria into the various
languages they created, giving the impression of a genetic relationship. When
the 18th century linguists jumped on the I.-E. band-wagon they had reasoned
that if the observed relationship was not accidental, it had to be genetic,
thereby totally underestimating the skill and determination of the ancient
grammarians. Through the years there have been a few courageous linguists who
had doubts about the troublesome Indo-European theory. One of them, M.E.
Landsberg of Columbia University S.C., wrote:

"Indeed, courses in historical linguistics
at Universities all over the world, in spite of much perplexing evidence to
the contrary, mostly still persist in adhering to strict Indo-European
theories".

In spite of them, no one thought to ask if there could
possibly be another explanation, e.g. an invented relationship. To this day,
this question is not being asked. Edo Nyland maintains that there never were
any Indo-Europeans, there was no proto-Indo-European language and the family
of Indo-European languages is a long perpetuated academic fraud.It an academic fraud because the truth has
long been known to a select group of religious scholars, who have kept this
knowledge secret, as was done in the past millennia. If controversy is the
lifeblood of scholarship, where are the real linguistic scholars, where are
the dissenters? Where is their courage?

ENGLISH
LANGUAGE MANIPULATED

Our English etymological dictionaries
do no justice to the tremendous language creation efforts of the Benedictine clergy and their grammarians. Almost every
English word existing at the time of Shakespeare, was invented by these marvelous linguists. It happened in
their scriptoria of Canterbury, Rochester, York etc. that the Benedictines
created the practical and expressive language that is ours today. The Celts,
Vikings, Saxons and whatever ruffians came drifting to the shores of Britain,
had nothing to do with the creation of the English language. The language
used in this enormous effort was Saharan, once the
universal language of continental Europe and Britain, but now best
represented by the Basque
Language. The grammarians, who were professional linguists, worked
for almost one millennium with the Benedictines. They came primarily from Liguria,
located in Northern Italy and the Alps. Their Ligurian language was, as far
as can be determined, identical to Basque. The method of new word
construction used by them was generally done with the vowel-interlocking
(Ogam) formula, which utilized the first three letters (VCV) of each Saharan
word in the description. The VCV's which were then agglutinated, always had
to have their vowels interlocked. To make the product pronounceable, several
vowels were removed and one or more h's, if present. The system is best
illustrated with a couple of simple examples.Take the word "begin", using the description:
"Someone start the action", which makes good sense. Where
vowels had been removed from the word, a dot is placed, which needs to be
replaced by the missing vowel, using the VCV dictionary.

Most academics accept the Indo-European theory
uncritically, teaching it to their students as proven science and using the
term in a variety of publications. However, there are still some linguists who
know the truth.Who these individuals
are is still kept secret. In the 20th century, many names have been attached
to individuals in different parts of the world that clearly indicate that the
secret of the vowel-interlocking formula and its associated language is still
preserved and used. The most prominent example is probably the name of the
British royal family, Windsor.

The British royal family adopted the name Windsor early
in this century. It is fair to say that they must have known exactly what
they were doing. They could not have picked a more appropriate name, but some
linguist must have advised them. The name Windsor is of course a much older
name, which was probably made up by some Benedictine linguists whose names
have been long forgotten.

This is a fascinating name because the linguists told
Stalin was that it came from the Russian word "stal" (steel), man
of steel. What was not conveyed was that it also isa word play in the Basque
language, the meaning of which tells a very different, but more realistic,
story.

A much more recent name is Habiari'mana, the Hutu
president of Rwanda who, in 1994, organized and initiated the mass-murder of
the minority Tutsi people, long living in his country.

It is not known who made up this name, but it is a
frightening thought that this mentality still exists in our world. It is a
good possibility that the scholar who made up this name is still alive. He is
not advertising his skills because this specialized knowledge is jealously
guarded by some secret society.

UNILINGUAL
EUROPE

As the glaciers on the Alps and Caucasus melted, the
air-circulation around the Mediterranean changed drastically. The most
affected area was the Central Sahara, which was populated by a large
population of independent tribes involved in grazing, simple agriculture and
some irrigation. Some tribes living along the west, north and east shores of
the Sahara, called the Sea-Peoples by the Egyptians, had developed
boat-building, star navigation and long distance ocean travel. By 5,000 bce.
the Central Sahara had become unlivable and most of the people had to flee to
the coast, where the Sea-Peoples were ready to ferry them to Europe/Europa

All these people spoke the same Saharan
language, adhered to the same Goddess religion, practiced a democratic and
matrilineal system of tribal solidarity, and had the same strong oral
traditions. There were no weapons of destruction and no fortifications; there
was little violence, because all living things were precious and respected.
There also was no inter-marriage between the different groups and
inter-tribal cooperation was strictly formalized. These tribes were being
ferried to the pleasant south shores of Europe, the beautiful Danube river
valley and the fertile lands adjoining the Dnepr river. In general those who
came from the Central Sahara appear to have settled in Central Europe, the
Near East and Russia, while the Sea Peoples
reserved all the islands and the coastal areas for themselves, especially on
the Atlantic islands and southern Sweden.

There were modern people (Homo sapiens) in
Europe before the Saharans arrived, as the beautiful 30,000-year-old art in
the massive caves of southern France and northern Spain has shown. These
people must have lived there through much of the glacial period, occupying
south facing caves and hunting the large animals associated with a
peri-glacial climate. They practiced the same Goddess religion and may have
spoken the same language.If this was
the case, there must have been contact and likely trade in animal skins for
use in the skin-boats (ox hide) and for sails (reindeer skin). Their
fabulously painted caves may have been very famous and pilgrimage sites for
the believers. Wherever the newcomers lived together with the original
people, the two groups likely merged, as appears to have been the case in the
Basque country.

However, in general,theEuropean continent was very empty, especially those lands
vacated by the glaciers and ice fields of central Europe, Caucasus and
Scandinavia. One easily identifiable group of migrants was the Berber Sea Peoples from Algiers and Morocco, whose
migrations and settlements can still be traced by their Rh-negative
blood type. Even today, there are Berber tribes in the Atlas mountains
region, which have 40% of their members with Rh-negative blood type. They sailed
the Atlantic Ocean and became the Basques (32%), the western Irish (25%), the
Scots (25%) and the Old Norse on the western islands of Norway (about 17%).
They also left some of their unusual blood type among the Lapps. At the time
of their migration, they could not yet travel through the North Sea, because
that shallow sea was still dry land, so they were forced to go west of
Ireland.

EXAMPLES OF
LINGUISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

If the languages are not genetically related, the Indo-European
group cannot be a family. The Indo-European confusion started about 200 years
ago when Sir William Jones discovered the relationship between Sanskrit,
Greek, Latin, and Germanic etc. It looked so obvious, the "perfect"
relationship between these words was there for everyone to see and, bingo!,
the genetic family of Indo-European languages was born, complete with
assorted laws of phonological correspondence and an Ur-mother language which
gave birth to all. Even though controversy is the lifeblood of scholarship,
all our academics happily climbed on the bandwagon and the common people
swallowed it, but where did this wagon take them? Here are two words to which
the VCV formula has been applied.

As you can see, the perceived
relationship between these words is not genetic, such as naturally derived
from some imagined proto-language, but instead they are contrived creations
by highly skilled linguists using the universal Neolithic language. The fact
that most appear to be related is not due to a genetic relationship, but
because of skillful manipulation by the grammarians using the VCV system of
agglutination. . A very new system of organizing the world's languages is
urgently needed to accommodate the language invention findings, as well as a
different approach to the teaching of linguistics.

A great deal of time was spent analyzing many words and
names in different "Indo-European" and "Nostratic"
languages to show that meaningful words or sentences, written in the Basque
language, are hidden in many, if not all of them.It certainly is revealing to see how the clergy handled the
sensitive words relating to sexuality, several of which are shown in the
following wordlist. Would they have been allowed to use such provocative
language if it had been suspected that their agglutinations would some day be
decoded?

Discussion

It is necessary to point out that Genesis 11:1 was
right; everyone did speak the same highly developed language wherever the
Saharan refugees had settled. It couldn't have been any different because
there was apparently no other highly developed language anywhere else in
Europe, the Near East, even India (see
Dravidians) , Japan (Ainu) and Polynesia.They were
settled by the migrants from the Sahara. It appears true that around 2,000
bce. the decision was made in Kizzuwadna, the religious center of Luvian
male-domination, that the language, the religion and the tribal structure of
the people from the Sahara was to be destroyed, to be replaced with invented languages, a male god, nationalism and
private land-ownership. When this order was repeated in the Old Testament
Bible it became a biblical command. That was the mission ofBenedictine clergy when they built their
monasteries in Britain.

The people who emigrated to Britain over the
centuries, all spoke the same language, the Saharan language, which can still
be detected as a substratum, throughout Europe. With the use of acrostic
manipulation, using the vowel-interlocking formula, the original Saharan
language was mutilated to the point where recognizing it was almost
impossible. The one modern language, which apparently changed very little, is
Basque.The Basque dictionary written
by Gorka Aulestia (University of Nevada,
USA) is used primarily in the translations. Edo Nyland has been strongly
supported with advice by many Basque speakers in Euskadi and the United
States and urged to place this information on the internet.

Most of the linguists who have
bothered to look at Nyland's (2001 &
2002 ) research have suggested "more reasonable"
possibilities to explain the observed inconsistencies in our present
knowledge.. They then invariably decided to ignore the issue until a reason
for a more thorough examination arose. In such cases, the status quo has
always ruled and the needed examination has been stalled. The burden of proof
is the task of those shaking the status quo. It is up to the shaker to
provide evidence rather than for those simply suggesting that the evidence
can be accounted for by existing paradigms. In this respect, Nyland has been
told repeatedly by academics that nothing can be true outside of the status
quo. Therefore, nothing outside the status quo needs to be investigated,
which is a sure prescription for continued ignorance and high intellect
superstition.